Progress Update

Bo,

Why you said that "it is not theoritically correct"? Isn't it just a ratio and proportion?

Taking into consideration different productivities and different types of quantities (or units), but each equating to a 100%.

And combining these activities, (or group of activities), again, you'll need to equate it to a 100% (so as the weightings).

Mohd,

I'm doing the same thing all the time (and I guess it is right), but Bo is maybe perfectly right.

If you have still doubts, just follow what Mike said (FS0), with direct quantities (straightforward).

But how to get the overall total? I'd guess you'll end up calculating costs.

cheers!

Hi Justin

This complication arises when you have multiple task activities.

Each task should have one trade in one location linked FS in a bottom up cascade - then all these weighting problems become irrelevant.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Mohd,

No, activities not resource loaded. I was talking from a mathematical point of view.

If your base duration is calculated from production rates, then you can only use your model if these production rates are based on the same number of workers. Normally for production rates this is 1 worker, so if your durations for A, B and C of 60, 30 and 10 days are all based on employing 1 worker - or any number of workers but of equal value - working to the same calendar for each of the 3 activities then your model is correct. If not (say A's production rate is based on a crew size of 5 workers, whereas C's production rate is based on 2 workers) then you can not use it - well you can if you want, but it is not theoretically correct.

Regards,

Bo

Mohd,

Your weighted average principle to find the overall total progress is correct under the assumption that the working calendar for each of the resources doing activity A, B and C are the same and that each of the 3 activities require the same quantity of workers for each of their individual duration.

If not, then you can not use this principle unless you also take that into calculation in your weighted average. Say A taking 60 days only requires 1 worker to do the 100m3, whereas C taking 10 days requires 100 workers to do the 40 nos. Then C suddenly have a much higher weightage than A which is total opposite of what you have assumed.

Regards,

Bo

Dear Mike,

It is not an single activity to go for a direct calculation , it contains 3 activities , so obviously it needs a weight factor to calculate total progress,@mohd : u can measure your progress by cost as well.

Regards

Justin

Salam...

I strongly agree with Mike. It is a straightforward calculation of quantity based progress calculation.

If you progress a resource loaded MSP schedule anyway, progress falls down to % work complete. Porgress is referring to figures you defined in your resource sheet table.

I stand corrected if my humble opinion is wrong.

Regards

Jonas

We do not know the scope of your project but if your PMT and client agree that the weight of each activity and progress is calculated as you show then that is probably OK.  However you total progress % should report as 42.5%.

Hi Mohd

If in activity A you have laid 100m3 in a total of 200m3 then the simple calculation is that you have done 50% of the work.

Why are you then applying a weightage to this straightforward calculation?

Best regards

Mike Testro